Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Time for United States to Keep Promise on Nuclear Disarmament
Today many will remember the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 64 years ago, the world's first and only actual use of nuclear weapons. A reverent few will gather at Greenlake and other areas around Seattle to memorialize those killed, and tomorrow we will resume our lives, ignoring the lethal threat that lurks all around us.
Today, the United States still possesses more than 9,000 nuclear warheads, approximately 2,000 of them on hair-trigger alert, ready to deploy and explode within 30 minutes of launch. Over one-quarter of those weapons are maintained at Bangor Naval Base, scarcely 30 minutes from Seattle, which is one of only two bases in the nation that houses Trident nuclear submarines, arguably the world's deadliest weapon.
Modern nuclear weapons are many times more powerful than those that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in 1945 and are thus significantly more dangerous and devastating. They are hardly in the category of an adequate and reasonable security measure. Today's nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and the longer they lay in waiting, the greater the risk that either they will be used for their stated purpose of extraordinary destruction, possibly by rogue nations or individuals, or that an accident will occur and unintentionally kill thousands if not more.
For the first time in many years we have a president committed to disarming the U.S. nuclear arsenal and seeking a world free from nuclear weapons. But in past weeks, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have pledged to help India in their efforts to increase the size of their military and nuclear capabilities. These actions and the president's oft-stated commitment to disarmament seem at odds. Indeed, while it is apparent there is some measure of sincerity in Obama's repeated proclamations, it is also apparent the commencement of global disarmament remains a goal waiting for concrete actions by the U.S. and others.
U.S. citizens want to feel safe and be safe, but when it comes right down to it, we are not engaged in pursuing what would above all else ensure our safety, regardless of our long-standing pledge to do so.
The international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we signed in 1968 states: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."
It would be difficult to argue that in the past 40 years we have honored this commitment - but we have a golden opportunity to salvage that promise.
In the coming months, the U.S. will face a number of critical decisions concerning nuclear weapons as several treaties and agreements are to be re-evaluated. The question remains: Will the U.S. take the necessary steps to move toward a world free from nuclear weapons? The answer seems clear: If we hope to ensure a safe future, free from the kind of devastation wrought in 1945, we must demand the U.S. set an example and begin disarming.
- Posted in
7 Comments so far
Show AllNo nation that now possesses atomic or hydrogen bombs will ever give them up willingly. They are too important, even crucial, to the identity of the aggressive sociopaths who run this world.
"Time for United States to Keep Promise on Nuclear Disarmament"
Except for Israel, of course.
Mordechai is right. Nukes have become a way for dipshit nations to fast track to superpower status. North Korea, by most accounts (and accounts are few and possibly flaky) seems to be willing to starve its people to pay for bombs that make no tactical sense for it to have. What are they going to do with them? Bomb us? Surely someone there knows what a massive retaliation that would trigger -- automatically, the way our system is set up; someone would have to catch the launch in progress for it to be stopped. Would they bomb Japan? Well, there's ancient enmity between those two places, but they wouldn't be able to do that without also triggering a retaliation.
The U.S. government-establishment attitude is: disarmament is a great idea; all the rest of you go first so we can stay on top and make sure you really mean it.
I've had a disturbing thought for a number of years now that it might be the rudest of all awakenings if one of those things were to go off in a populated area. The only film we have of the actual effects of nuclear explosion are from Japan and are in black and white and are only a few weeks younger than I am. High definition color video of a nuclear aftermath . . . well, that's really a bad idea. Even I shouldn't be thinking such things. People can watch "The Day After" on DVD if they want some hint of what it might be like (and I think the popularity of disaster special effects movies is people trying to prepare themselves psychologically for what they fear may go down).
It has gone my whole adult life without happening again. Maybe if I'm lucky I'll be long gone before it ever does.
"Nukes have become a way for dipshit nations to fast track to superpower status."
...or to keep from being invaded by superpowers like US.
Disarm Israel - muddled East peace at last!
If this article wasn't so sincere in its naivete it would be laughable. The United States has broken the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty from the very day it was signed. We have not only increased the number of nuclear weapons, but also improved the delivery technology, brought potential nuclear war into space, and helped armed Israel, India and Pakistan with nuclear weapons. The United States will never disarm its nukes.
And, yet, America demands that N Korea and Iran should not have nukes while allowing Israel to have them and to totally disregard and have contempt for the nuke treaty and the rest of the world.
The United States is the only country to use nuclear bombs in warfare and to nuke civilians. America has never set an example for nuclear disarmament, and has been devious in its dealings with other countries regarding disarmament. Apparently, from what Clinton and Obama have promised India, we can expect more of the same from our government. Russia beware.
Sure the road isn't an easy one. Is disarmament likely? Maybe the better question is whether we should act based on what is likely or what is necessary. Have we come all this way as a species to presumptiously think we can predict the future and write it all off?
I don't know that I genuinely think nuclear disarmament is possible. But I'd rather die trying than give up. To give up is to severe that most loving, caring part of myself and become even more misanthropic.
Los Alamos disarmament activist John Dear reminded a group that HOPE is working for something that is not within easy reach. None of the most serious issues facing humanity are within easy reach. Does that mean we don't find meaning and connection with humanity by trying, thinking creatively and not severing that part of ourselves that simply needs to believe in a positive future?